Conspiracy Theory 4 - Flight 93 was completely staged.
Flight 93 has been put into the limelight that it was completely staged, and the conspiracy theory has arisen. It was believed by the public that flight 93 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania at 10:02 on the 11th of September, 2001. But there are many statements and facts that generate the idea of flight 93 being staged. Many of these being, why is there no plane wreckage at the assumed crash site? or why is the dry grass near the crash site not burnt at all? and why was the same aircraft reported landing in Cleveland about two hours after the crash?
Looking at photographs of the crash site, there is no clear verification that the dry grass got burnt. With the other crashes - flight 11 and flight 175 - crashing into the WTC buildings; they created huge explosions and caused a huge amount of fire. Whereas with this 'crash', there is a huge amount of untouched grass surrounding the crash site; when it should have been burnt. This is supported by the fact that this plane would have been carrying a large amount of jet fuel (like the other planes), which should have ignited and caused a huge explosion. But this did not happen.
Secondly, United Airlines stated that Flight 93 had landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard ", said Mayor Michael R. White. This fact also supports the idea of flight 93 being staged, as it is not possible for flight 93 to land in an international airport two hours later, after it had just crashed in a field.
Lastly, why are there no large pieces of plane wreckage at the crash site? Wouldn't it make sense for there to be large pieces of rubble and disorderly parts of the plane to be lying at the crash site? But yet there are pieces of debris found three to eight miles away from the reported crash site. This does not make sense, as there are pieces found away from the crash, but not at the crash site itself. Was flight 93 shot down causing the plane to break up in midair? Or was it all completely staged?
Looking at photographs of the crash site, there is no clear verification that the dry grass got burnt. With the other crashes - flight 11 and flight 175 - crashing into the WTC buildings; they created huge explosions and caused a huge amount of fire. Whereas with this 'crash', there is a huge amount of untouched grass surrounding the crash site; when it should have been burnt. This is supported by the fact that this plane would have been carrying a large amount of jet fuel (like the other planes), which should have ignited and caused a huge explosion. But this did not happen.
Secondly, United Airlines stated that Flight 93 had landed safely at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. "A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard ", said Mayor Michael R. White. This fact also supports the idea of flight 93 being staged, as it is not possible for flight 93 to land in an international airport two hours later, after it had just crashed in a field.
Lastly, why are there no large pieces of plane wreckage at the crash site? Wouldn't it make sense for there to be large pieces of rubble and disorderly parts of the plane to be lying at the crash site? But yet there are pieces of debris found three to eight miles away from the reported crash site. This does not make sense, as there are pieces found away from the crash, but not at the crash site itself. Was flight 93 shot down causing the plane to break up in midair? Or was it all completely staged?
- The location of an engine = 2000 feet away from the crash site
- The Indian Lake marina = 3 miles away from the crash site
- The New Baltimore = 8 miles away from the crash site